Plan Commission

Minutes Village of East Troy Plan Commission & Architectural Review Board June 12, 2017 1. Call to order – President Seager called the meeting to order at 6:30 pm 2. Verification of open meeting notice - Administrator Suhm verified the meeting had been posted according to open meetings laws. 3. Roll call Present: President Seager, Trustee Renucci, Commissioners Edward Arendt, John Grudnowski, Roger Hayes, Erin Seaverson, Benny Stichmann Others: Zoning Administrator Tim Schwecke, Building Inspector Scott Johnson, Deputy Clerk Alexander and Administrator Suhm 4. Approve Plan Commission minutes of May 8, 2017 Motion by Trustee Renucci, second by Commissioner Arendt to approve the minutes dated May 8, 2017. Motion carried. 5. Citizen participation None. 6. Amendment of site plan for East Troy High School for a netted batting cage and detached accessory building; Robert Ellis, agent (application 2017-15) A. Possible action by the Plan Commission Zoning Administrator Schwecke reviewed his staff report dated June 7, 2017. Motion by Commissioner Seaverson, second by Commissioner Arendt to approve the site plan as proposed provided applicant obtains a building permit for the proposed storage shed. Commissioner Hayes suggested extending the inner fence to prevent somebody from running into the block building when trying to catch a fly ball. Jim Taylor, James Taylor and Sons, Inc., spoke on behalf of the applicant. He stated the shed is a good distance from the playing field, likely further than it appears on the plan. After further discussion, the Commission determined if it becomes an issue the school district will likely work to address this without the Village needing to intervene. Vote on the motion carried. 7. Site plan for building addition (enclose existing stairs) located at 1998 Church Street; East Troy Railroad Society, applicant (application 2017-17) A. Possible action by the Plan Commission Plan Commission Minutes June 12, 2017 Page 2 of 5 Zoning Administrator Schwecke reviewed his staff report dated June 7, 2017. He explained there is an existing building and the applicant would like to enclose an exterior stairwell. The proposed plans meet all setback and offset requirements. It is in the rear yard. Motion by Trustee Renucci, second by Commissioner Arendt to approve the site plan for the building addition as proposed, provided the building permit is obtained. Commissioner Seaverson questioned the flat roof and whether they considered if snow melt would be an issue. Jim Taylor, James Taylor and Sons, Inc., stated they sloped the roof toward the building so the structure would not cover the window of the building. They proposed the roof style depicted because a gable roof would not be cohesive with the architecture of the building. He further explained drainage and plans for roofing to address snow melt and drainage. Vote on the motion carried. 8. Sign permit for awning sign above exterior entry door on Main Street located at 2880 Main Street; Ross McMiller, property owner and UCFET LLC, tenant; (application 2017-16) A. Possible decision by the Plan Commission Zoning Administrator Schwecke stated the applicant was not present. He reviewed his staff report dated June 7, 2017. He explained normally sign permits are handled by the building inspector, however, in this case it is located in the Downtown Design District so the Plan Commission reviews this signage. The applicant seeking authorization to place signage on an existing canopy (the signage has already been placed). The applicant was also proposing the addition of two to four light fixtures and it was not clear where the fixtures will be placed on the plans. He further stated there was a lack of information on how the light fixtures will hang over the canopy and shine. The Plan Commission discussed their review authority over signage on the Square. This discussion included concerns that this sign is not aesthetically compatible the other signs on the Square. They also discussed the proposed LED flood lights, which are out of context with other lighting on the Square. The Commission discussed fascia that was also redone on the canopy at the time of sign installation. However, it was determined this was simply repair work and not redesign, so approval was not necessary for the fascia work. Trustee Renucci clarified with Building Inspector Johnson that they did not seek approval from him prior to proceeding, which was confirmed. Plan Commission Minutes June 12, 2017 Page 3 of 5 Motion by President Seager, second by Commissioner Arendt to deny approval of the sign and lighting in hopes of getting a representative from the business to present an option to create a sign in the business district. Motion by President Seager, second by Trustee Renucci to amend the motion to state denial was due to not conforming to items c and d of the review criteria. Motion carried. The review criteria is covered in the staff report as well as 561-141(B)(4) of the municipal code. Vote on the original motion carried. 9. Discussion related to various text amendments relating to standards for flagpoles and parking vehicles and trailers in front yards of residential lots A. Possible action by the Plan Commission to set public hearing date The draft ordinance, which was not included in the packet, was distributed at the meeting. Zoning Administrator Schwecke explained the proposed section related to flagpoles and other structures such as garden pools, fountains and statuary was taken from the Village’s code prior to the zoning code update in 2011. The height limitations of 24 feet in a residential district and 32 feet in a commercial district were discussed. The Commission expressed a desire to amend the draft in a manner that it would address that the height limitation above ground surface. Concerns were expressed that the ground below could be mounded to allow an increased height. The second section of the ordinance pertained to recent issues brought to the Commission’s attention by the Building Inspector. This related to paving of front yard areas for additional parking. Different scenarios were discussed regarding circle driveways and side entrance garages. If the code simply stated they could pave in front of the garage but not the house it could be detrimental to these two scenarios. The Commission determined they would like to view examples of different plats and scenarios of where the driveway would be placed on the property. In addition to providing examples, Zoning Administrator Schwecke will review additional language that may clarify and assist. 10. Discussion related to a village-wide ordinance to regulate short-term rentals A. Possible action by the Plan Commission to recommend Village Board consideration Zoning Administrator Schwecke presented an example ordinance for consideration. He explained the ordinance is not part of the zoning code, however, the Plan Commission can still make a recommendation for the Village Board to consider adopting an ordinance such as this. He presented different options to the Commission including to not allow any short-term rentals less than 27-days, limiting the amount of times per Plan Commission Minutes June 12, 2017 Page 4 of 5 year a residential property owner can rent their property for a short-term rental, or allowing short-term rentals without limitation and requiring a permit and/or fees. He clarified the only thing regulated is any stay 27 days or less, and that meets three criteria listed in the sample ordinance. The Commission discussed the benefits and drawbacks of allowing short- term rentals and property owner rights versus the neighboring property owner’s rights. Discussion also included at what point the short-term rentals are no longer a homeowner renting their property and a regular business as well as the fees and regulations hotel owners must comply with. Different views were expressed in varying degrees including no regulations to no short-term rentals being allowed. Discussion included consideration of allowing it on a limited basis to not be so restrictive that it would not be allowed in special circumstances. The topic will be reviewed again at the next meeting. 11. Discussion related to potential beautification efforts (e.g. signage (welcome/Village of East Troy, directional, etc), landscaping and flowers in public areas and benches potentially sponsored by businesses) A. Possible action by the Plan Commission Deputy Clerk Alexander reported she received a written letter from our representative at the State Department of Transportation giving the Village permission to work with the County regarding sign placement in the right-of-ways (Highway20). The State stated they have transferred jurisdiction of the maintenance of the property to the County so this was deemed appropriate. She also contacted the County and they found placing gateway signage in the right-of-ways acceptable as well as the DPW Director because his department mows the median as well. She stated once placement of the signs is determined they will need to be staked for final review. The Commission discussed the locations including the median for Highway 20. The Commission discussed the various sign options and it was determined Deputy Clerk Alexander will return with modified sign designs incorporating the curved top, a smaller gazebo and larger lettering. She also suggested they may want to consider plantings around the sign in the median on Highway 20. Deputy Clerk Alexander suggested coming back with quotes for two large signs and three small signs. Administrator Suhm informed the Commission the recent capital plan updated for financial planning included $20,000 in 2018 for the signage. Once the Commission has different pricing and sign options they can determine if all of the signs will be purchased at the same time or phased in. Plan Commission Minutes June 12, 2017 Page 5 of 5 Deputy Clerk Alexander also informed the Commission she had spoken with individuals regarding the two welcome signs installed on Highway 120 and on the corner of Energy Drive and Highway ES. This was a joint effort between the Chamber and Economic Development Committee. There did not seem to be concern if the signs are removed at this time. This was also the response received regarding the large wooden welcome sign on the Middle School property along Highway ES. Deputy Clerk Alexander will return with the modified sign designs and pricing. The Commission also requested durability information with the sign options. In addition, they discussed reviewing samples of sign materials and making a determination on whether the signs should be reflective based on the review of materials. 12. Recommendations for future agendas None. 13. Adjourn Motion by Commissioner Arendt, second by Trustee Renucci to adjourn at 8:21 p.m. Motion carried. Respectfully Submitted, Eileen Suhm, Administrator